It has also been pointed out that council priorities of attending to kerb and gutters instead of upgrading the atrocious condition of the roads if difficult to understand.

No doubt grant funds have been obtained for the kerb and guttering work. It is a shame that additional grant funds could not be directed to fixing the roads.

The question is: what is the purpose of the extensive construction of kerbs that restrict the normal flow of traffic? Is the purpose traffic control or pedestrian safety?

The kerbs protrude into the street up to five metres from the normal street gutter alignment.

A specific example of the changes to one intersection – the Sale-March streets intersection – defies logic.

There are functional roundabouts at intersections to the east, west and south of this intersection. When construction commenced we assumed that another roundabout was being built to ease the congestion at busy times of the day.

A useful project that was not to be. A chronicle of events relating to this project are interesting.

There is an existing pedestrian crossing with median strips already in place 25 metres to the east of the intersection in March Street. Therefore pedestrian safety has been ensured

Construction commenced in February. The team have come back twice to make further changes, including the narrowing of some of the curbs. This is three efforts to do the job which is still not completed.

One tree was removed. The tree was small and did not impede vision. Other trees have been left and embraced within the new curbs.

Kerbs extended five metres into the street and the median strips further reduced the width available to traffic.

In March Street the drive-able space has been reduced from 20 metres to 12 metres allowing for the existing tree line. Drive-able space has been reduced from 26 metres to 15 metres in Sale Street at the intersection.

The narrowed space prevented buses from turning into March Street from Sale Street.

Last week paint spots have appeared, indicating wider medium strips are to be built, further reducing drive-able space.

Following these events it is difficult to identify the purpose of all this work: is it for traffic control or pedestrian safety?

Certainly traffic space is reduced. This must increase the risk of accidents and collisions with the new kerbs.

What is apparent is that plans have been changed. At what cost?  Who pays for the inefficiency? Is it Orange ratepayers or are expenses added to the grant? 

It is sad that Orange, noted for its wide, tree-lined streets, is blighted by traffic hazards that do not appear to have a tangible purpose other than increasing the risk of accidents.

I BELIEVE that 99 per cent of the good and decent residents in the large area known as Glenroi are fed up to the back teeth with the regular, negative publicity the area receives.

Your front page heading ‘GLENROI'S SHAME’ published on May 18 should read ‘ORANGE’S SHAME’.